Are 90 municipalities REALLY necessary? Consolidate! (St. Louis, Maryland Heights: real estate, crime, mortgage)

[jskirwin]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

I'll keep my little municipality...the police are effective at preventing crime, and you have more representation to the folks who really matter (aldermen and up the chain) than you will in larger municipalities.
.... and I for one would rather see my tax dollars squandered right here in my little city, than I would like to see them squandered by someone else further away.

Irony aside I think it cuts both ways. While a smaller political entity should be more responsive to the needs of its citizens than a large one, in practice I'm not sure that always happens.

I can think of two municipalities off the top of my head that had trouble with corruption, St. George and Valley Park, and I'm sure there have been more since I left the area. Big entities are subject to more watchdogs and have a higher level of accountability than smaller ones, so while you may feel that your money is more secure in your municipality, I wouldn't bet on it.

[jskirwin]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

With regards to the tickets, I know my little city hands them out like water...actually easier than they hand out water (unless your on the golf course). But the truth of the matter is, a speeding ticket is the result of speeding. I received one on I-70 adjacent to the airport, I disagree with the idea that it's a "travel safe" zone, but I didn't argue the fact that I was going faster than was posted, was caught doing it, and I paid some $$ to the city budget as a result. Speeding tickets are 100% avoidable, plan a little more time before leaving the house, and don't go over the speed limit, and you can probably go your entire driving career without a ticket related to speed. That's just my $0.02.

Growing up in South County everyone learned about St. George. The speed limit on MacKenzie/Reavis Barracks Rd was 35 outside of it but dropped to 30 as soon as you crossed the "city" line. The cop usually sat on the line or at the Imo's pizza at the turn. On the other side of the line the speed limit bumped back up to 35. Valley Park also had a strip on old 141 that dropped from 45 to 35 to 25 then back up again.

I believe this practice was challenged in the 90's and changed, but I know other municipalities that will pull you over for going a mile or two over the speed limit. At 55 mph speedometers can vary by that amount so you may think you are doing the limit but you may not be.

Both of these practices penalize regular citizens and are legalized means of extortion. It's not about safety, and it surely isn't about protecting the citizenry of the burg since a cop running a speed trap is one less cop driving around checking on the neighborhood.

[flynavyj]

I totally agree that speedtraps can be useless, and simply setup as a ways of making money. As to city protection, I agree with that as well. St. Ann setup a speed camera in a school/park zone a few years ago (before Charlack tried to make money with one on I-170). The St. Ann camera was imposed to free a cop from having to sit at the middle school and watch for speeders, it's a 20 mph zone and speeds averaged 40-45 mph apparently, after the installation of the camera average speed dropped to 25 mph, and tickets aren't issued until 30 mph.

What's humorous, is that getting police away from the middle school probably allowed the city to place more officers on I-70 for speed enforcement next to the airport. Which by the way isn't a city of St. Ann thing, but a state govt patrol. State Hwy Patrol officers are intermixed with local city officers to increase their numbers, but State patrol is running the radar from the Drury building south of the airport, then whichever officer doesn't have someone pulled over will come get the speeder. I'm sure others have seen it too, but it can be somewhat humorous to see 6-7 officers with people pulled over within a mile stretch of highway.

With regards to the large or small city govertments, as I said i'm sure there are pros and cons to both...and there are plenty of small city governments that have corruption too, but i'd rather be trying to police a small organization than a large one and I'd take any bet that the government of St. Louis City, or St. Louis County is significantly more corrupt than MOST of the small local governments. The revenues are large, and there's money to "go around"...hence why a certain county exec was hiring friends and family for part time jobs at $60-70k/year...NUTS!

[stevio63]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

I'll keep my little municipality...We have about 14k residents, and a relatively small footprint. Our community has enough parks and services to keep most residents content, the police are effective at preventing crime, and you have more representation to the folks who really matter (aldermen and up the chain) than you will in larger municipalities.

The other issue is the historic nature of the region. Many municipalities trace their history back generations, and can point towards specific events that dawned the creation of the city. I know that when I grew up in Bridgeton it was incorporated as an individual "city" before the American Revolution. Saint Ann draws their incorporation into St. Louis county following WWII (Much of our hosing stock was created for the support of WWII production factories). There were likely reasons that each little municipality stayed separate from other surrounding and established cities, and I'd have to believe that if it was possible to do with the $$ of yesteryear, it's possible to do with the $$ of today...and I for one would rather see my tax dollars squandered right here in my little city, than I would like to see them squandered by someone else further away.

exactly right.....we do have a "federalist" system....and local governments belong.....let the people that have to live in those areas actually have some say in who "governs"....and if they choose to incorporate....great...but if not.....who's business is it anyway to "demand" how and who governs that "city"?? There is too much of this in society now....I KNOW BETTER AND I'M GOING TO FORCE MY "PHILOSOPHY" UPON YOU!

[stevio63]

Originally Posted by jskirwin

Growing up in South County everyone learned about St. George. The speed limit on MacKenzie/Reavis Barracks Rd was 35 outside of it but dropped to 30 as soon as you crossed the "city" line. The cop usually sat on the line or at the Imo's pizza at the turn. On the other side of the line the speed limit bumped back up to 35. Valley Park also had a strip on old 141 that dropped from 45 to 35 to 25 then back up again.

I believe this practice was challenged in the 90's and changed, but I know other municipalities that will pull you over for going a mile or two over the speed limit. At 55 mph speedometers can vary by that amount so you may think you are doing the limit but you may not be.

Both of these practices penalize regular citizens and are legalized means of extortion. It's not about safety, and it surely isn't about protecting the citizenry of the burg since a cop running a speed trap is one less cop driving around checking on the neighborhood.

Just updates.....both valley park and st.george have disbanded their local police departments and now contract with st.louis couty police....

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by scocar

I've lived here since August, and still have my AZ plates. I've been pulled over once, and it was on the 44 by a Kirkwood Police officer who said I was too close to the car in front of me. He just gave me a warning with no ticket after running my Arizona license and registration. I didn't even have my insurance information in the car with me I just told him the name of the carrier.

I don't know for sure if this is what motivated the stop, but 44 is considered a major route for the smuggling of drugs and illegals. He might have used following the car in front of you too closely as a "pretext" to stop you because of the AZ plates to do a quick check. I don't know your age or car, but he probably wouldn't do it with a couple of retirees with AZ plates.

Just a hunch.

[flynavyj]

actually, following to close is a pretty dangerous activity, and in many ways more dangerous than speeding in an unrestricted area...I'd prefer cops to "police" dangerous activities based on safe driving principles than to simply ticket folks for automatically going 10 mph over the speedlimit.

The worst idea the area came up with were those variable speed limits along I-270. Thankfully they've gone away, but the fundamental flaw is that the maximum speed limit was set to 60 mph, but could decrease all the way down to 45 mph. If it's suddenly unsafe to drive at 60 mph, i'm sure there are plenty of times (say, 12:45am on a Sunday) where driving faster than 60 mph would be completely acceptable...the limit should have had the ability to go both up, and down...if that'd been the case, it'd probably have been accepted by more of the public, especially those folks driving porsches, mercedes, audis, and bimmers.

[STLCityMike]

I wonder what the government budgets are for all of these municipalities?? How many Government jobs would be lost by consolidation? Would there be an opportunity to then increase services OR reduce taxes?

[marigolds6]

I think we are ignoring the primary reason behind all of these cities...
restrictive covenants and redlining.
Although those practices became illegal in 1968, the two decades they existed created enough long lasting neighborhood lines that cities differ very significantly in character and have strong prejudicial resistance to consolidating with their neighbors.

[Dawn10am]

They did that for City neighborhoods, yes, but I'm not sure they ever redlined entire towns. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.